rrrrrr - ERIC · 2014-03-11 · so. 1.0 nil. 1.5 mm. 2.0 mm. 3. 3. 11111 r r. rrrrrr r. 11111....

$Page 1: rrrrrr - ERIC · 2014-03-11 · so. 1.0 nil. 1.5 mm. 2.0 mm. 3. 3. 11111 r r. rrrrrr r. 11111. I.C\) CD. D. rt)) ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ abcdefghij klmnopqrstuvwxyz 1234567890$
so.

1.0

nil

1.5

mm

2.0

mm

3 3

1111

1

r rrr

rrrr

r

1111

1

.

I.C

\)C

DD

rt))

AB

CD

EF

GH

IJK

LMN

OP

QR

ST

UV

WX

YZ

abcd

efgh

ij kl

mno

pqrs

tuvw

xyz

1234

5678

90

AB

CD

EF

GH

IJK

LMN

OP

QR

ST

UV

WX

YZ

abcd

efgh

ijklm

nopq

rstu

vwxy

z12

3456

7890

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 283 061 CG 019 950

AUTHOR Raphael, Karen G.TITLE Subjective Occupational Structure and Holland's

Theoretical Hexagon.SPONS AGENCY Sigma XI, The Scientific Research Society.PUB DATE Aug 86NOTE 27p.; Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the

American Psychological Association (94th, Washington,DC, August 22-26, 1986).

PUB TYPE Reports Research/Technical (143)Speeches/Conference Papers (150)

EDRS PRICE .}4F01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Career Choice; College Students; *Congruence

(Psychology); *Females; Higher Education; *Models;Multidimensional Scaling; Rating Scales; *VocationalInterests; *Work Attitudes

IDENTIFIERS *Hollands Theory of Occupational Choice

ABSTRACTAlthough Holland's theory of vocational choice has

received widespread attention since its formulation in 1959, therehas been little research examining how well Holland's two-dimensionalhexagon explains an individual's subjective occupational structure ofthe work world. A study was conducted to examine the degree to whichjudgments of similarities/dissimilarities among Holland's sixoccupational themes correspond to a hexagonal model. Female collegestudents (N=94) completed the Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory, abackground questionnaire including projected occupational choice, anda similarity rating scale among occupational themes. The rating scalecontained all possible pairs among the six Holland themes whichsubjects rated as similar or dissimilar. Similarity ratings weresubmitted to three multidimensional scaling analyses: nonmetricsimple Euclidian model, nonmetric individual differences model andProcrustes fit of similarity ratings to a fixed two-dimensionalhexagonal configuration. The results provided some support for theview that female college students' perceptions of the world of workare consistent with Holland's hexagonal model. (Two data tables, fivefigures, and references are included.) (NB)

***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.***********************************************************************

Occupational Structure

.1.

Sublective Occupational Structure and Holland's

Theoretical Hexagon

Karen G. Raphael

Columbia University

School of Public Health

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and improvement

EDU ATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced asreceived horn the person or organizationoriginating it.

0 Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in this docu-ment do not necessarily represent officialOERI position ut

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATE L HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

Presented at 94th Annual Convention of

the American Psychological Association at Washington, D.C.,'

August 1986

2 BEST COPY AVAILME


2

Subjective Occupational Structure and Holland's

Theoretical Hexagon

Since its original formulation more than 25 years ago

(Holland, 1959), Holland's theory of voctItional choice has

received widespread attention in the professional

literature. Holland's theory states that both occupational

environments and personality types can be summarized

according to six themes or combinations of themes. These

themes are: Realistic (R) (e.g., plumber, mechanical

engineer), Investigative (I) (e.g., lab assistant,

physicist), Artistic (A) (e.g., editor, garment designer),

Social (3) (e.g., minister, teacher), Enterprising (E)

(e.g., lawyer, salesperson), and Conventional (C) (e.g.,

accountant, secretary). Holland represents the

relationships among the six themes on a hexagon, where

similar themes are placed closest together and dissimilar

themes are placed further apart.

Holland's occupational theory also assumes that people

ara most satisfied, productive and stable in work

environments that are congruent with their personality

themes. Congruence is typically assessed by examining the

match between an individual's personality profile on an

occupational interest inventory and themes associated with

the individual's occupational choice.

3


3

Since the early 1970s. there have been a number of

studies which investigate the extent which a hexagon can

summarize the relationships among the six occupational

themes. Prediger'(1976) has emphasized that the hexagon is a

two-dimensional figure, suggesting that Holland has posited

the existence of two basic dimensions or factor on which

occupations may differ. These dimensions might be labeled as

Things vs. People and Data vs. Ideas (see Figure 1). Thus,

research or Holland's hexagon emphasizes the extent two

which the six Holland themes fall on two interpretable

dimensions.

Insert Figure 1 about here

Several studies have used lector analysis or related

techniques to decompose items or scales of occupational

interest inventories into underlying dimensions. Cole,

. Whitney and Holland (1971) concluded that a 2-dimensional

hexagon provided approximate fit to factors underlying the

Strong Vocational Interest Blank (SVIB), Vocational

Preference Inventory (VPI), and the Kuder Occupational

Interest Survey (KOIS). Edwards and Whitney's (1972) factor

analysis of the Self-Directed Search (SDS) suggested that a

two-dimensional solution was inadequate. Prediger's (1982)

analyses of the VPI, SDS, SVIB, the Strong-Campbell Interest

Inventory (SCII), and the Unisex Edition of the ACT Interest

Inventory (UNIACT) revealed that a similar structure was

4


4

underlying nearly all the inventories, and that a two-

dimensional plotting of the Holland types closely

approximated a hexagon.

There is a paucity of research examining how well

Holland's two-dimensional hexagon explains an individual's

subjective occupational structure of the work world. It has

been noted (Crowley, 1979) that occupational environment

classification schemes such as Holland's focus almost

exclusively on intrinsic interests dealing with actual )ob

activities rather than on interests which are extrinsic to

job activities such as financial reward or working

conditions, Studies by Burton (1972) Reeb (1959) and Grunes

(1957) all suggest that, when individuals are asked to judge

similarities among a list or pile of occupations,

occupational perceptions do not correspond to Holland's

theoretical hexagon. Prestige and required training or skill

may play a larger role in forming subjective occupational

structures.

The following study examined the degree to which

judgments of similarities/dissimilarities among Holland's

six occupational themes correspond to a hexagonal model.

METHOD

Ninety-four college women completed the Strong-Campbell

- Interest Inventory (SCII; Campbell & Hanson, 1981), a

background questionnaire including pro)ected.occupational

choice, and a similarity rating scale among occupational

5


5

themes. The rating scale consitAed of a description of each

theme, adapted from Holland (1973, pp.29-33). All possible

pairs (n=15) among the six themes were randomly presented.

Subjects rated each pair as similar or dissimilar on a nine-

point scale (where 1=extremely similar and 9=extremely

dissimilar).

Data treatment and results

Similarity ratings were submitted to three

multidimensional scaling analyaes using the ALSCAL program

(Takane, Young, & Deleeuw, 1977; Young, Takane, & Lewyckyl,

1978): nonmetric simple Euclidian model, nonmetric

individual differences model, and Procrustes fit of

similarity ratings to a fixed two-dimensional hexagonal

configuration. A summary of results from the three analyses

is presented in Table 1.

Insert Table 1 about here

Results from thca simple Euclmdian model revealed that a

two-dimensional solution accounted for a sizable amount of

the variance (57%). Orthogonal rotation.of the derived

configuration (see Figure 2) shows that the data approximate

a mirror image of Holland's hexagonal configuration. A

reflection of the derived configuration, then, would closely

resemble Holland's hypothesized configuration.

6



A nonmetric'individual differences model (see Figure 3)

explained a similar percentage of the variance (59%) and

suggests that Dimension 1 is similar to the Data/Ideas

Dimension, while Dimension 2 is similar to the Things/People

dimension. A plot of subject weights (see Figure 4)

suggests, however, that there is conniderable variability in

the degree to which the two-dimenaional model accounts for

individual data. Notable scatter is revealed. For example,

in the lower right corner of the Figure are points

representing subjects who did not fit the model well; both

dimensions received low weightings. The cluster of points in

the central region of the figure represents subjects who

gave approximately equal weightings to Dimensions 1 and 2

and whose perceptions fit the hexagonal model well.



In the Procrustes solution, the hexagonal configuration

accounted for more than 50% of the variance in individual

subject data. However, while the average R2 for individual

7


7

data was .50, there was considerable variation in the degree

to which individual perceptions fit the two-dimensional

hexagon (SD = .20; minimum r2=.03; maximum 2=.95). As shown

in Figure 5, a sUbject weight plot suggests that most of_the

women gave aimilar weightings to both dimensions.


Individual sublect weights from the Procrustes ALSCAL

solution were correlated with congruence scores. Congruence

scores were derived from the general three-level method

suggested by Holland (1972), by comparing each respondent's

General Occupational Theme (GOT) profile from the SCII to

the profile corresponding to their occupational choice. The

correlation analysis determined whether any systematic

shrinking or stretching of either dimension (e.g., along

Data/Ideas or People/Things dimensions) occurred as a

function of congruence. Results showed that congruence did

not correlate significantly with weighting of Dimension 1

(Things/People) (r(92)=.08, p>.05) or Dimension 2

(Data/Ideas) (r..(92)=.08, p).05). This suggests that women

whose stated occupational choices matched their SCII

profiles were no more likely to separate the occupational

themes in terms of Data/Ideas and Things/People dimensions

than women whose occupational choices and GOT profiles

showed poorer match.

8


8

Finally, selected demographic variables were correlated

with Dimensional weights from the Procrustes ALSCAL

solution, to explore systematic differences in subJective

occupational structure as a function of background. As shown

in Table 2, a small but statistically significant

relationship was found between parent's income and weighting

of Dimension 2 (r.(88)=.21, p=.05). This suggests that women

who came from more affluent backgrounds made discriminations

among the six themes that more closely fit Holland's

conception of how these themes require involvement With data

vs. ideas.

Insert Table 2 about here

Pisqugai9P.

The current study has provided some support for the

. notion that college women's perceptions of the world of work

are consistent with Holland's hexagonal model. The chance

probability of obtaining the ordering among the six types

consistent with Holland's hexagon is low (p=.01). A

Procrustes fit to a perfect hoxagon provided moderately good

fit to respondent data on perceived dissimilarities among

the six themes. The other scaling solutions provided support

for a somewhat distorted hexagon.

Systematic distortions in the nonmetric Euclidian and

individual differences models suggest that respondents

9


9

viewed Investigative versus Realistic and oci1 versus

Enterprising occupations as somewhat more similar than a

perfect hexagon would allow. A similar pattern was reported

by Rounds, Davison, and Dawis (1979) who scaled actual

correlations among the GOT subscales of the SCII.

In the current study, only six original stimuli were

submitted to multidimensional scaling analyses. According to

recommended variable-to-dimension ratios, between 13

(Kruskal & Wish, 1978) and 18 (Schiffman, Reynolds, & Young,

1981) stimuli would be needed to derive a stable three-

dimensional solution. Thus, the current data would not have

been able to provide a solution of more than two-dimensions.

Consequently, the stability of the current two-dimensional

structure must be questioned.

The use of six occupational stimuli preaanta a second

problem. Perhaps these six types do not represent an

adequate explication of the perceived "world of work."

Future research on subjective occupational structure might

employ a greater number of occupational types, perhaps using

the 25-category "job family list" presented by the American

College Testing Service (Prediger, 1981) or by taking a

random sampl,a 'oi the base titles listed in the DiCttignar-Y-

of_Dccuaational Titles (U.S. Department of Labor, 1977).

In sum, the current study suggests that women,, given

the six occupational themes, generally perceive

relationships among them similar to relationships stated in

Holland's model. This suggests that Holland't model has some

1 0


10

common-sense appeal and, therefore, increased utility. It

would be premature to suggest, however, that a two-

dimensional model is the "real- model of the world of work,

or that the hexagonal model is the best theoretical

framework within which to understand the basis of

occupational choice.

11


11

References

Burton, M. (1972). Semantic dimensions of occupational

names. In A.K: Romney, R.N. Shepard, & S.B. Nerlove

(Eds.), Multidimensional scaling: Theory and applications

in the behavioral sciences. (Vol. 2). New York: Seminar

Press.

Campbell, D.P. & Hansen, J.C. (1981). M111.141_1Qr_thp_.,5

Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Cole, N.S., Whitney, D.R. & Holland, J.L. (1971). A spatial

configuration of occupations. Journal_ of Ygcat4P11.!111,..

Pahavior_, 1, 1-9.

Crowley, A.D. (1979) Work environment preference and self-

concepts: An investigation of Holland's theory. Bri,tish

Journal_of_quidance and__Coupseling, 7, 57-63.

Edwards, K.J., & Whiney. D.R. (1972). Structural analysis

of Holland's personality types using factor and

configural analyz,is. p.uzp1, of unsel_ing__Esychology,

1, 136-145.

Grunes, W.F. (1957). Looking at occupations. Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology, 54, 86-89.

Holland, J.L. (1959). A theory of vocational choice. J.zu.r.nA.1.

of Counseling Psychology, 5, 35-45.

Holland, J.L. (1972) .

Direg_t_ed *egmtb... Palo Alto. Calif.: Consulting

Psychologists Press.

1 2


12

Holland, J . L. (1973) .

careers. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentico-Hall.

Kruskal, J.B., & Wish, M. (1978). MultIdln.vneisara.1 srollna,

Beverly Hills; Calif.: Sage Publications.

Prediger, D.J. (1976). A world of work map for career

exploration. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 24, 198-208.

Prediger, D.J. (1981). gob_family_ligt, Mimeo, Iowa City,

Iowa: American College Testing Service, R & D Divisioh.

Prediger, D.J. (1982). Dimensions underlying Holland's

hexagon: Missing link between interests and occupations?

49Prnal_IPf_V.P.Pa_ti:Pnal_BellaY4PT_. 21., 259-287-

Reeb, M. (1959). How people see 3obs: A multidimensional

analysis. OCCLIPAIA9RAI_PPY_chPIPSY. aa, 1-17.

Rounds, J.B., Davison, M.L., & Dawis, R.V. (1979). The fit

between Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory General

Occupational Themes and Holland's hexagonal model.

Journal_of_Yocational_Behayior, 15, 303-315.

Schiffman, S.S., Reynolds, M.L., & Young, F.W. (1981).

Introduction to multidimell4lonal scaling: Th542rXx

metboda...._anA_APPligAtiAng.,_ New York: Academic Press.

Tkane, Y.. Young, F.W., & DeLeeuw, J. (1977). Nonmetric

individual differences multidimensional scaling; !III

alternating least squares method with optimal scaling

features. EarszlIgAg.trika-, 4Z. 7-67'

U.S. Department of Labor (1977). DicnAry ct_2g.g.uaatiQnAl.

titkps (4th ed.). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government

Printing Office.

13

Occupational 5tructure

13

Young, F.W., Takane, Y., & Lewycky), R. (1978). Three notes

on ALSCAL. Psychometrika, 53, 433-435.

14


14

Author Notes

This paper ia.based in part on the author's doctoral

dissertation in psychology completed at Hofstra

University under the direction of Bernard S. Gorman. The

research was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid of

Research to the author from Sigma Xi, the Scientific

Research Society.

Correspondence concerning this paper should be

addressed to Karen Raphael who is now m.t. Columbia

University, Psychiatric Epidemiology Training Program,

100 Haven Avenue, Tower 3-20E, New York, NY 10032.

1 5


15

Table 1

ALSCAL Model Comparison Under a Two-Dimensional Solution

Stress

NonmetricSimple Euclidian

Model

. 20

NonmetricIndiv. Dill.

Model

.23

ProcrustesIndiv. Diff.

Model

.20

Avg. R2 .57 .59 .50

Avg. Subject Wts. NA .56 .49(Dimension 1)

Avg. SubjectcDimension

Wts.2)

NA .47 .48

1 6


16

Table 2

Bivariate Correlations of Procrustes Dimensional Weights

with Selected Biographical Variables

Respondent Age

ProorustesDimension

.07

Wt. Procrustes Wt.1 Dimension 2

.14

Academic Year -.04 .13

aAge when Mother Worked -.11 .-.02

Parental Income .04 *.21

Mother's Education .02 .07

Ilata. a = 94

*p_ = .05

aItem states, -Which of the following best describes your

_mother's work schedule?" "She started working before I was

six years old;" "She started working when I was between 6 .

and 11 years old;" etc.

1 7


17

Figure 1. Distances among Holland themes according to a

Hexagonal model.

18

çece`2)


18

Elam_re 2. Stimulus ,mpace from nonmetric Euclidian distance

multidimensional scaling model for six occupational themes.

20

\ (Ideas)\

\\

\\\\\\\\./

I

///

//

/

//

/

(Things) ,

//

//

/R/

.

.

.

//

//

/

,'(People).

\ /

//'''

-,..

-

/

//

E

\

\\

-------

DIM.

\

2

\\

\

----

\

\,

\.

.

(Data)\

\..

.

-1.50-1.20 -.90 -.60 -.30 0 +.30 +.60 +.90 +1.20 +1.50

R2

= .573ALSCALDimension

Stimulus 1 2

Realistic (R) .9022Investigative (I) .2038 1.1256Artistic (A) -1.6450 .6629Social (S) -.8646 -.7934Enterprising (E) -.2192 -1.2023Conventional (c) 1.6228 -.6730

21

1110

+1.50

+1.20

+ .90

+ .6o

+ .30

0

.30

- .60

.90

1.20

1.50


19

Figure 3. Group stimulus space from individual differences

scaling model for six occupational themes.

---....

22

DIM.1

(Things?)

-,

-

(Ideas?)

DIM.2(People?)

,

(Data?)

r

,-

-

-

-

-1.80 -1.50-1.20 -.90 -.6o -.30 0 +.30 +.60 +.90 +1.20 +1.50

R2 = .590

ALSCALDimension

Stimulus 1 2

Realistic (R) -.1579 1.2393Investigative (I) -.4079 1.0312Artistic (A) -1.6745 -.6244SocW (S) .0554 -1.1871Enterprising (E) .5380 -1.0945Conventional (C) 1.6469 .6355

23

+ 1.50

+1.20

+ . 9 0

+ .6o

+ . 3 0

0

.30

.60

- .90

- 1.20

- 1.50


20

Elaura_l, Derived subject weights from two-dimensional

individual differences model for six occupational themes.

24

0.2A A A

A

A

1

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

DIM 1: PEOPLE/THINGS


21

Figure 5. Derived subject weights from Procrustes fit tO-a

hexagonal configuration for six occupational themes.

26

0.8

AA

AA

A

AAA A

0.6 L 0 A,1. AtrAL,AA

AAk. L a 1AA: 6 A il

0.4 A k 6 av al LI A

0.2A AA

A

14m'A A

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

DIM 1: PEOPLE/THiNGS

27

1 I I

ill

0

Date post:	18-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

rrrrrr - ERIC · 2014-03-11 · so. 1.0 nil. 1.5 mm. 2.0 mm. 3. 3. 11111 r r. rrrrrr r. 11111....

Documents